- advertisements -
There are many hobos on the train. All need a hot meal. Me, I hopped off in AK.
I wish all the best to every other hobo.
The engineers on this train are fucking crazy.
"it is not coming for a long time"…Is that what Carla says about Sarkozy?
Didn't she just pop out a mini-koozy?
QE3 followed by inflation targeting? Really, what could possibly go wrong?
Exactly..... Either delusional or arrogant for the Fed to believe that they can control inflation after they QE3, but "this time is different", I'm sure..... Plus SuperBen studied this scenerio for his doctorate, so he knows how to handle it........ Cough.....
A long time in this market = about 6 months. Plan accordingly.
Debt considered an asset? All zeros and ones.
Wait until the great rebalance, and we'll knock off about six zeros.
Lost them? Gone, can't find them anywhere.
CBS sux. Debate started nicely, but Huntsman (poll 0) started getting more questions than Cain. Oh, gee, now the televised section is over. Fuk CBS, they don't even have Dining With The Stars.
Insanity made normal.
......................FUCK You Golman Sachs".........................
Go rule some other fucking world.
Leave mine alone.!!!
your are obviously not Italian or a member of the ECB, FSB etc
reading this is laboring...
...like mental quicksand...
Trade the shadows Slewie. The major markets are subordinate to the Shadow Banking trade!
Mental quicksand, goddamn Slewie, you can turn a phrase...
Lehman Brothers movie in cinemas
trust tyler to pick off
the inverse strawman argument
i needed that!
So the baseline assumes another round of Quorporate Entitlement.
And that would be bullish I assume.
Ben we told you not to feed them - now they'll never leave.
Actually, I've been thinking for a long time that nominal GDP targeting would be a good way to set a monetary but ONLY if the target was a very strict 2.5% nominal GDP growth. That way, in boom times inflation would be zero or even negative if the economy was growing at normal GDP rates. If the economy overheated there would be automatic tightening to stop inflation stting in but if it slowed or began shrinking then inflation would automatically allowed to say 4%.
It makes intellectual sense - instead of having two opposing targets of employement and inflation that are difficult to balance then a single nominal GDP target would be easier to monitor and deliver. The problem is the target will not be stuck to rigidly and it is only being proposed now to provide a fig leaf for what the Fed and other central banks really want which is to let inflation rip in the name of solving the unemployement problem. I believe it will happen for this reason. It is already clear that the Bank of England is ignoring it 2% CPI target and the Fed is talking about the unemployment rate as the primary driver of its monetary policy and dearly would like house prices to start inflating again.
I also know that invetsment banks are rather keen on creating a market for GDP linked bonds to sell to pension funds. Meanwhile pension funds are keen to change their payout promnises to 'nominal GDP' as a way of solving their deficits.
wonderful idea, comrade.
50 billion accounting fraud. those guys are still not guillotined?
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertise With Us
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
How to report offensive comments
Notice on Racial Discrimination.